Re: Piotr: Brittonic?

From: CG
Message: 25219
Date: 2003-08-20

> > Who says it's a tribal name? It is used as a national name, but
> > there
> > is no single tribe of Picti in Northern Britain
> Chris, as I mentioned above, the Romans referred to the "savage
> tribes of Picti and Scotti", they are mentioned as a tribe along
> with the Scotti. Now it's true that Scotti was used as a
> designation for Gaelic raiders/settlers of NE Irish origin, but if
> Picti was a national name as you suggest, why don't they just
> mention "the savage tribes of Picti"?
> Why are 2 distinct peoples here mentioned?

Because the Scotti and the Picti _were_ two distinct peoples - and
Scotti was a national name of sorts as well, not the name of a single
Irish tribe. The Latin word for "tribe" inthe passage you reference
is gens - and it the Caledonians and other Picts" (Panegyric on
Constantine Augustus) - Ammanius Marcellus also stated that
the "Picts were now two peoples - the Dicalydones and Verturiones." I
think this is evidence enough that the Picti were regarded as a group
of tribes, not a single tribe.

> > Umm...yes I do - because that's what the evidence suggests.
> And yet you have provided no such evidence. If Picti was used by
> the Romans as a nickname like this, then why don't they refer
> to "Picti Caledoni", "Picti Scotti", etc. as they did with the
> Picti Scythians?

Umm, maybe because the Scotti were Irish, not Picts? Wed on't know
how the name Picti was originally used - it very may well have
started out like that, but over time was simply used on its own.
Lloyd and Jenny Lang ("The Picts and the Scots") suggest that the
name might have been in use since the time of Septimius Severus'
campaigns in Britain in the early 3rd century.

> It just doesn't make sense that the Romans would
> at such a late date start calling N. Britons "the painted ones,"
> when they certainly were aware of their painting/tattooing habits
> long before this.

Yes, but by the 3rd century the southern Britains wouldn't have been
painting themselves like the northern Britons anymore, so it would
have struck 3rd century Romans that these Northern Britons were very
archaic and barbaric, unlike their southern British counterparts,
whom had been Romanized for some time by then.

> > Because the Southern Britons were Romanized and likely no longer
> > painted/tatooed themselves, while the Northern, non-Romanized
> > Britons
> > would have kept up native face painting/tatooing traditions.
> > would have been a bit of a slur towards these stubbornly barbaric
> > people, in the eyes of a Roman citizen.
> This is a weak explaination Chris, because the whole of S. Britain
> wasn't necessarily completely Romanized, there were many tribal
> areas outside of Romanized areas, and there were also Scotti in N.
> Britain who didn't fall under the Picti designation.

Don't know what to tell you - this is accepted by the majority of
Pictish scholars, and has the support of various classical authors'
attestations on the origin of the name Picti.

> > I'm sorry, but that just isn't supported by any actual evidence -
> > you only find it in medieval pseudo-histories, which cannot be
> > trusted very often.
> You're mistaken here, there is evidence, it isn't just the fact
> that it's mentioned by Nennius, Gildas and Bede, but that what they
> wrote about an overseas Pictish settlement in the FAR NORTH, with
> the Orkneys as a staging point, followed by an expansion southward
> is supported by the following:

Mike...there is no such evidence - at least nothing that modern
scientists would consider as evidence. I highly suggest you pick the
Lang's book on the Picts & Scots - it is a great introduction,a nd
will dispel for you a lot of these fallacies.

> In addition to this, the Norse referred to the Orkneys as "Pict
land" and
> the brochs have long been called "Pict houses." The Pictish place-
> "pit" is widely attested in the Orkneys, as would be expected if
this was
> their staging point.

Pit comes from Gallo-Brittonic pettia "portion/parcel/piece", thus it
could reasonably be found anywhere Gallo-Brittonic was spoken.

> Chris, I have provided what I think is a rational and valid
> and if you're going to suggest otherwise, I would really like you to
> provide evidence and reasons why you think contrary rather than just
> saying that you think it's unlikely. It would really be a lot more
> helpful if you did this.

I'm sorry, but I really don't have the time or energy to type up all
the necessary quotes and references - I can suggest you start with
Lloyd & Jenny Lang, then seek out the various sources that they list
in their bibliography.

- Chris Gwinn